NATO allies agree to higher 5% defense spending target

[Allan]

Typical Canadian.

Whine like hell when they might be on the raw end of a deal. Any one else complains about that it this is the response you get.

It’s fortunate that Canada is simply not a player on the world stage.

 

[MAGAnificent]

IIRC, that ‘promise’ (pinky swear?) was for (all?) NATO nations to increase their annual defense spending to 5% of GDP by 2035. For the US that would be annual defense spending of about $1.7T (5% of $34T).

We are near a trillion now. by 2035, we will likely be at the 1.71 figure.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

@Lord Tammerlain

That a pretty weak ass excuse for not keeping the commitments your country made.

But I am sure you have not complained once about Trump tearing up the Iran nuclear deal right? After all that was not ratified by Congress. Of wait. Let me guess that is different.
You are not very convincing.

I felt Trump tearing it up was a stupid decision, but certainly as it was not a ratified treaty certainly within his power

The 2% military spending I felt was and is a stupid target, it was and only was a committed by leaders not official government policy as it was never voted on by government at least in Canada.

NAFTA and it's replacement on the other hand were ratified, certainly having more weight behind them. Trump destroyed the treaty.

Trump and the US are now untrustworthy

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

They’re just tell Trump what he wants to hear.

Besides, what exactly does this “5%” include? The salaries of military personnel and their benefits package upon retirement? Civil/infrastructure projects that can be used to support the military?

Hell, one could argue the Interstate Highway system was militarily construction.

3.5% is direct military spending, 1.5% can be spent on items that improve defense like bridges, cyber security freeways railways etc to count for the 5%

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

We are near a trillion now. by 2035, we will likely be at the 1.71 figure.

But then.the gdp will grow as well making the target 2 trillion

 

[ttwtt78640]

We are near a trillion now. by 2035, we will likely be at the 1.71 figure.

Assuming current US GDP is $28T then 5% is $1.4T.

 

[braindrain]

Yeah I know the truth bores Canadians.

 

[Brusan]

Defence expenditure is defined by NATO as payments made by a national government (excluding regional, local and municipal authorities) specifically to meet the needs of its armed forces, those of Allies or of the Alliance.Jun 17, 2025

U.S. military defense spending primarily includes costs associated with military personnel, weapons procurement, research and development of military equipment, and operations and maintenance. These expenses are a significant part of the federal budget, particularly its discretionary spending.

Key components of U.S. defense spending:

• Military Personnel:
  This covers pay, benefits, and retirement for active-duty, reserve, and civilian defense personnel.
  
  
• Procurement:
  Funds are allocated for purchasing and acquiring new weapons, aircraft, ships, vehicles, and other military systems.
  
  
• Research and Development (R&D):
  This category includes funding for the research, development, testing, and evaluation of new military technologies and equipment.
  
  
• Operations and Maintenance:
  This encompasses the costs associated with maintaining military readiness and operations, including civilian salaries, travel, training, and the upkeep of military facilities and equipment.
  
  
• Other Activities:
  Defense spending also includes funding for military construction, family housing, and atomic energy defense activities.
  

 

[braindrain]

I felt Trump tearing it up was a stupid decision, but certainly as it was not a ratified treaty certainly within his power

The 2% military spending I felt was and is a stupid target, it was and only was a committed by leaders not official government policy as it was never voted on by government at least in Canada.

NAFTA and it's replacement on the other hand were ratified, certainly having more weight behind them. Trump destroyed the treaty.

Trump and the US are now untrustworthy

Yes you don’t go on and on any how the US can’t be trusted. Who do you think you are fooling.

The leadership of your country disagree. But hey I am sure you know more then them right?

You government committed to a spending plan in a defense organization they voluntarily joined. Then have been not been meeting that obligation for a while now and you want them to never meet it. Shows just how trustworthy Canadians are as well
But hey keep pretending you have the moral high ground while you sit back and do nothing. It’s what you and your countrymen excel at.

 

[Brusan]

Yes you don’t go on and on any how the US can’t be trusted. Who do you think you are fooling.

The leadership of your country disagree. But hey I am sure you know more then them right?

You government committed to a spending plan in a defense organization they voluntarily joined. Then have been not been meeting that obligation for a while now and you want them to never meet it. Shows just how trustworthy Canadians are as well
But hey keep pretending you have the moral high ground while you sit back and do nothing. It’s what you and your countrymen excel at.

At the very least your comparing the factual to the hypothetical says more about what you excell at than it does the alternative.

Trump tore up a signed treaty.

Canada not meeting an agreed upon target of funding formula to spend on it's own military in no way abrogated the entire NATO charter rendering it extinct.

Your gov't chooses to spend on it's military what it does being in no way shape or form thinking of any NATO agreement on spending as an imperative.

Trying to colour it in any way other than the U.S. does what it does for it's own benefit and no one else's - is just unadulterated crap!

 

[Allan]

Trump tore up a signed treaty

Two of them. Both NAFTA and USMCA.

 

[Cope]

The US is probably not going to comply with the Article 5 provision in the future so this increase by remaining countries will be crucial.

Why would the bolded affect the lower statement, at all?

Canada is currently at 2% and Carney in an interview from Brussels committed Canada to reaching the target.

NATO allies agree to higher 5% defense spending target

The alliance agreed to more than double its defense spending target by 2035.

www.nbcnews.com

The countries should always and forever be holding up their end of a bargain and NOT rely on the US to carry your water.

 

[Allan]

The countries should always and forever be holding up their end of a bargain

We have. We met the 2% target this year, as required by the agreement.

and NOT rely on the US to carry your water.

That's never happened.

 

[jmotivator]

The US is probably not going to comply with the Article 5 provision in the future so this increase by remaining countries will be crucial.

Canada is currently at 2% and Carney in an interview from Brussels committed Canada to reaching the target.

NATO allies agree to higher 5% defense spending target

The alliance agreed to more than double its defense spending target by 2035.

www.nbcnews.com

Kind of an A-hole move for the other nations in NATO not meeting their obligations because they assumed the US would do the fighting and dying for them.

 

[Grand Mal]

Typical Canadian.

Whine like hell when they might be on the raw end of a deal. Any one else complains about that it this is the response you get.

It’s fortunate that Canada is simply not a player on the world stage.

Typical American.
Completely ignorant of the topic but convinced his opinion needs to be heard anyway, and loudly too.
Trump, during his previous administration, tore up the trade agreement between Canada and the US and negotiated a new one. Bragged about dictating the terms, too.
Now he wants to get his magatry up on their hind legs howling so he cooks the books and claims Canada has been taking Americas lunch money! Under his trade agreement.
It's fortunate for the world that he's speeding America down the road to irrelevance.
And it's fortunate for Canada, a huge country with plenty of everything except people, that we enjoy such a high regard and reputation around the world. We earned it, over and over.

 

[Cope]

Partially correct, and mostly because the US is no longer a reliable ally because the old order is being dismantled. On one side it's a good thing for Europe, but with increased spending in Europe, it means they're going to be less interested in US leadership because a part of what came with the US being the main power militarily, was having a larger voice in decisions.

It also probably means that there will be less discretionary income to give away or do, outside the bounds of spending limits.
Or add more to the debt of those countries.

 

[Grand Mal]

Kind of an A-hole move for the other nations in NATO not meeting their obligations because they assumed the US would do the fighting and dying for them.

The only time NATO has fought and died it was NATO fighting and dying because America had been attacked.
America has proven itself to be a shitty ally. NATO would be far better off without the USA.

 

[Peter]

You have it backwards. Trump is merely the first president since WW2, to call the rest of the world on giving the US the shaft on trade. Many of them have benefited on selling goods in the US market for decades, however, allow little or no fair access to their own markets. And what you hear them say in front of the cameras does not always match what they are saying in private. They are not telling him to **** off. They are negotiating trade deals. The Brits recently signed one.

The US is free to go full on North Korea if you like, the rest of the world will survive just fine.

 

[Brusan]

Why would the bolded affect the lower statement, at all?

The countries should always and forever be holding up their end of a bargain and NOT rely on the US to carry your water.

In what tangible way has the U.S. carried anyone's water vis-a-vis any NATO authorized obligation?

 

[Brusan]

Kind of an A-hole move for the other nations in NATO not meeting their obligations because they assumed the US would do the fighting and dying for them.

The U.S. did this fighting and dying alone at NATO"s behest when exactly?

 

[Tigerace117]

There's no route to expell members, far as I know. Quote it if I'm wrong.
The US can withdraw or it can be ignored and excluded but can't be expelled.

If every other member state stops treating the US like an ally, the inability of them to kick the US formally wouldn’t matter.

But y’all haven’t been ignoring the US. Aside from some rhetoric, it’s been business as usual.

 

[Roadvirus]

Okay. My bad. I went for those countries with direct historical reasons to fear Russia. Shoulda backed threaded before posting.

No prob.

 

[Grand Mal]

If every other member state stops treating the US like an ally, the inability of them to kick the US formally wouldn’t matter.

But y’all haven’t been ignoring the US. Aside from some rhetoric, it’s been business as usual.

Yeah, and aside from the Prime Minister of Canada arriving in Brussels ahead of the NATO summit and signing into an EU military agreement that excludes the USA.

Also,
"Other non-EU nations, including the United Kingdom, have already struck their own strategic agreements. Australia signalled last week it has started negotiations on a deal with Europe."

The USA is being worked around, not least because they've proven to be a shite ally.

 

[jmotivator]

The only time NATO has fought and died it was NATO fighting and dying because America had been attacked.
America has proven itself to be a shitty ally. NATO would be far better off without the USA.

And which NATO countries were attacked and the US didn't show up?

I mean, NATO could vote out the US if they wanted, but seeing as how they just increased their commitment at the request of Trump, they are not as delusional on this subject as you appear to be.

 

[Grand Mal]

And which NATO countries were attacked and the US didn't show up?

Hasn't happened.
Well, there was that Falklands Islands thing but for NATO to get involved the attack has to happen in Europe or North America.

I mean, NATO could vote out the US if they wanted,

No they can't. There's no route to expell a member.

but seeing as how they just increased their commitment at the request of Trump,

That increased commitment is preparing to go ahead without the biggest member, preparing for American irrelevance.
And it had nothing to do with Trumps request. The 5% of GDP target is actually higher than what America spends on defense.

they are not as delusional on this subject as you appear to be.

There's a new alliance forming. Prime Minister Carney arrived in Brussels ahead of the NATO summit to sign into the EU military agreement. Also...

"Other non-EU nations, including the United Kingdom, have already struck their own strategic agreements. Australia signalled last week it has started negotiations on a deal with Europe."

America is being worked around.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-rearm-europe-deal-1.7567162